Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive annotations already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real substance: what a result contains (titles, dates, summaries, a matching snippet, links) and the default ordering when the query is empty. It stops short of describing ranking behaviour or the practical result limit, which is a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences: scope first, output shape second, the empty-query behaviour and the follow-up routing last. No filler, and the routing instruction is front-loaded enough to be acted on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so (titles, dates, summaries, snippet, links). Combined with the empty-query semantics and the hand-off to get_essay, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter's own description already states both the topic-question form and that an empty value lists everything, so the description's 'Leave query empty to list all essays' largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Niels Langereis's essays) and enumerates the topical scope, so an agent knows exactly what corpus this covers. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_essay by naming it as the follow-up for full text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit operating conditions: empty query lists everything newest-first, and 'Follow up with get_essay for the full text before quoting him' names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.